Does it tick anyone else off when 1 reviewer leaves multiple reviews of the same book

[C.I.Bond]

This happens, typically with an early reviewer and they give a very long summary of the book and then an enthusiastic 5 stars. If you scroll down you see another identical review and another 5 stars but this time they are reviewing the Kindle version instead of the paperback. It would be one thing if Amazon listed each version as a different product but since they don’t this just skews the star rating and honestly no one reviews the “Kindle aspects” vs the “paperback” aspects, it is the same darn review of the content repeated verbatim. You get nothing new, the only thing it does is push up the stars.

Grr… maybe I should have put this on the rant thread.

[astra]

I also check how many reviews they have done. Usually, it is the only book. Maybe 1-2 others. I simply ignore the idiots. I also ignore those who have 500+ reviews. Probably bookshop owners. Some writers ask their friends to leave positive reviews (probably written by the writers themselves). They are usually among the first reviewers and 1 review reviewers. I have noticed that if you read reviews in the first couple of months that is what you get. If you read the reviews 1 year later, then sort out reviews by Newest First, you get more realistic opinions.

[Worldwalker]

I was looking at my reviews the other day, and I noticed that they're all either 4/5 stars, or 1 star. Thinking about it, I'm most motivated to review when something (not necessarily a book) is really, really good, or it's really, really bad. Apparently, things in the middle just don't excite my passions enough to either praise them or warn people about them.

Also, I've been a reviewer for years but I don't have a lot of reviews -- less than 20. So something else to look at might be when someone began reviewing. If they just signed up when that book came out, that's a bright red flag that they are in some way connected to (or simply are) the author.

[rhadin]

My policy is to review only those books that are exceptional -- exceptionally good or exceptionally bad. Very rarely I will review a book that fits in neither category because I think either the author has talent that needs to be directed or the book could be exceptionally good with a little bit of reworking. That was the case with Olivia's Kiss by Catherine Robinson. I reviewed the book (click here to access the review) and noted that it has the potential to be outstandingly good with some developmental editing.

With most books falling into the mediocre or less place on a rating scale, it seems a waste of time and energy to review them. I never downgrade a book because of cost, although I will state that I think the cost is too high if the book doesn't deliver what I perceive to be equivalent value.

The problem with reviewers is that one cannot tell what is their agenda or background. The one thing missing with online reviews are reviews of the reviewers or at least a full, comprehensive bio of the reviewer so one can at least glean whether or not the reviewer's opinion might have some value.

[SeaBookGuy]

At Goodreads, I try to say something - anything - to avoid leaving just stars, even if it's along the lines of "Good, but not great", etc.

[kcmay]

I can't say I've noticed multiple reviewers for the same item. It never occurred to me to do that, so I never considered that someone else might.

[C.I.Bond]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

I was looking at my reviews the other day, and I noticed that they're all either 4/5 stars, or 1 star. Thinking about it, I'm most motivated to review when something (not necessarily a book) is really, really good, or it's really, really bad.

But serious would you leave 2 reviews saying the same darn thing? Who does that and thinks it's ethical? Why doesn't Amazon prevent this since they are putting all the reviews in the same pile regardless of the medium reviewed - hardcover, paperback, Kindle. They are basically saying that the book is the same and it should be pretty obvious that if I own the paperback I wouldn't buy the Kindle and the hardcover versions in addition, unless I had some sort of OCD collection issue. If I were a reviewer I would be embarrassed to do something like this, why aren't other people ashamed of themselves. That's what's wrong with the world today, not enough shame!

[simonroyle]

Originally Posted by rhadin

My policy is to review only those books that are exceptional -- exceptionally good or exceptionally bad. Very rarely I will review a book that fits in neither category because I think either the author has talent that needs to be directed or the book could be exceptionally good with a little bit of reworking. That was the case with Olivia's Kiss by Catherine Robinson. I reviewed the book (click here to access the review) and noted that it has the potential to be outstandingly good with some developmental editing.

Great review. I added you to the Indie Reviewers list.

[rcuadro]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

I was looking at my reviews the other day, and I noticed that they're all either 4/5 stars, or 1 star. Thinking about it, I'm most motivated to review when something (not necessarily a book) is really, really good, or it's really, really bad. Apparently, things in the middle just don't excite my passions enough to either praise them or warn people about them

I do the same thing... the books that are in the middle of the road I forget about them in a day and with the book goes the though about the review

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by C.I.Bond

But serious would you leave 2 reviews saying the same darn thing? Who does that and thinks it's ethical?

You were under the misapprehension that people who boost the ratings of their own books, or get family and friends to do it for them, think it's ethical?

Why doesn't Amazon prevent this since they are putting all the reviews in the same pile regardless of the medium reviewed - hardcover, paperback, Kindle.

I would guess, because it's harder for them to spot fakes than it is for bogus reviewers to create them. I've never tried, true, but I'd guess I could set up an outrageous number of Amazon accounts using a similar number of freemail addresses -- gmail, etc. -- and proxies so my IP is different. With those, as long as I don't use exactly the same words, the level of analysis (computer or human) that would catch my glowing (but fake) reviews would produce too many false positives for real reviewers that just happened to like the book.

In the end, the only real protection is ourselves. Look at the reviewers' other reviews. Check multiple sources -- trusted blogs, for instance, or for that matter just about anything that's been around longer than that author (though that doesn't always work; there are blogs solely to promote scams, apparently on a pay-for-placement basis). Read an excerpt. Check around MobileRead. And accept that you'll sometimes wind up with a dud anyway ... we all do, if we read enough, even if it's only on dead trees, as my "to be sold" pile demonstrates.

[stargazertony]

I don't pay any attention to reviews and reviewers. I think for myself. After all, one mans junk is anothers treasure. An author has but 10-20 pages to hook me or I get rid of the book. This is much easier now with ebooks and free samples of books that can be downloaded.

[durkinrobinson]

Originally Posted by rhadin

My policy is to review only those books that are exceptional -- exceptionally good or exceptionally bad. Very rarely I will review a book that fits in neither category because I think either the author has talent that needs to be directed or the book could be exceptionally good with a little bit of reworking. That was the case with Olivia's Kiss by Catherine Robinson. I reviewed the book (click here to access the review) and noted that it has the potential to be outstandingly good with some developmental editing.

I appreciated your review. It takes time and energy to craft thoughtful critiques and yours was especially helpful. Thanks again!

[C.I.Bond]

So I wrote to Amazon and this is the response I got:

“I wanted to mention that different editions, bindings, or versions of a title are often linked in our system so customers can easily find the version they're looking for. In such cases, the same reviews appear on the product detail pages for all versions.

Such content sharing allows us to provide all review information possible, regardless of the edition. This includes both editorial reviews and customer reviews.”


This seems like they want to have their cake and eat it too. Either they are each separate products deserving of unique review pools or one product with one pool and one review/reviewer. I know… I am tilting at windmills but it annoyed me so I complained. To see an example of what I am talking about you can look up a book called Blood Vice.